Jump to content
Awoo.

The General 'Murican Politics Thread


Tornado

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Things have really been shaken up, as there is evidence younger voters are turning Republican and older voters are turning Democrat as well. The promised "demographic war" that the Democrats have been hoping for may not deliver results after all.

Where does it say that in the article?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jiren (Metro) said:

Where does it say that in the article?

My apologies, those are in other articles.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-millennials/exclusive-democrats-lose-ground-with-millennials-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1I10YH

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-healthcare-poll/exclusive-as-elections-near-many-older-educated-white-voters-shift-away-from-trumps-party-idUSKBN1HG1I6

On the plus side, seniors are a more reliable voting bloc, so this could actually help the blue wave.

What are the issues driving seniors into the arms of the Democratic Party? Healthcare, in particular. 10 years later, the "death panel" nonsense that was being spun about Obamacare does not stick like it used to. Seniors are preferring the dedication to Medicaid and Medicare, as well as the Democrats' willingness to embrace gun control.

Among young voters, the pattern is less going towards the GOP and more losing interest in the Democratic Party. It is quite possible a progressive would be key to courting both the younger and older voters. Although a lot of millennials are moving towards the GOP.

In a twist no one saw coming, race and gender has a lot to do with it; white male millennials are far more likely to have shifted towards the GOP, praising its tax cuts and feeling they are better stewards of the economy.

We're basically seeing further polarization and party sorting, with casual Democrats, particularly white men, finding more in common with the GOP than the Democratic Party, as the Democrats move towards racial diversity and a larger welfare state. This is consistent with findings that historically, a lot of wealthier people basically chose the Democrats for the social liberalism; as the Democrats move further to the left socially and economically, the GOP is looking more appealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Trump leaves office, there may be a bit more voter shifting, as there won't be a big bad nemesis to push the Democratic party leftwards anymore.

I can't understand why any millennial in this day and age would pick the GOP, though. Their tax cuts primarily benefit the wealthy and entrench their wealth hoarding, their "economic stewardship" consists mostly of riding Obama's economic coattails (I'd love to see how he'd handle a real economic emergency, like the one Obama entered office facing), and there's Trump himself - the ultimate obnoxious, egotistical, narcissistic wart. And that's saying nothing of the party's immigration, healthcare and other policies.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/23/650979665/kavanaugh-denies-fresh-harassment-allegations-from-college-classmate

Annnnd things are getting a lot worse on Capitol Hill. Kavanaugh's ability to claim being an irresponsible teen has taken a huge hit, as now he has a college classmate accusing him of sexual harassment.

The White House has abandoned all pretense of believing the victim and has outright said Ramirez' claims are an attempt by Democrats to smear Kavanaugh. They're playing the "well other people say Kavanaugh's a great guy!" card.

All I can say to the White House is this: learn how sociopaths and abusers work. They put up a great facade of charm and normality to most people, so their handful of victims will have nobody to believe them.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/23/650979665/kavanaugh-denies-fresh-harassment-allegations-from-college-classmate

Annnnd things are getting a lot worse on Capitol Hill. Kavanaugh's ability to claim being an irresponsible teen has taken a huge hit, as now he has a college classmate accusing him of sexual harassment.

The White House has abandoned all pretense of believing the victim and has outright said Ramirez' claims are an attempt by Democrats to smear Kavanaugh. They're playing the "well other people say Kavanaugh's a great guy!" card.

All I can say to the White House is this: learn how sociopaths and abusers work. They put up a great facade of charm and normality to most people, so their handful of victims will have nobody to believe them.

Look at Jimmy Saville. When he died he was a national treasure that everyone loved. Now his monstrous acts have come to light and his name is worse than mud. Kick-started what we call the Yewtree people. People in the same position as Saville and Rolf Harris, who were beloved by the general populace, now the populace are trying to erase as much of their legacy from history by association.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jiren (Metro) said:

Is it possible that a "Red Wave" is coming this election?

Highly doubtful. The midterms almost always go against the incumbent party. The GOP might pick up seats in the Senate, but in all likelihood, they are going to be losing seats across the board. It's really just a matter of how much. State-of-the-art gerrymandering will make them more resilient than prior decades' midterms, but the trend is still against them overall: an unpopular President combined with the fact people who hate the President are far more reliable voters. When you consider how many senior voters are turning against the GOP, as well, that spells a bad election for the GOP, even if it's not a wipeout.

The most recent midterms where the trend was broken were 98 and 2002. 98 is attributed to Newt Gingrich basically being an obstructionist ass and focusing on impeaching Bill Clinton as a House strategy; buyers were quickly turned off. 2002 was a case of the fact George Bush was basically untouchable for a few years after 9/11, and everyone was busy being misty-eyed about his leadership and 9/11. A few years later, the wool was ripped off the public's eyes, people saw Bush and his allies for what they were, taking advantage of tragedy to push their own preexisting interests, and bam, the Democrats mopped the floor with the GOP in 2006 and then 2008. In the same way, the uncertainty over the Affordable Care Act and a highly mobilized Tea Party movement dealt the Democrats a huge blow in 2010.

If there's an argument for compulsory voting, it would be the fact it would make our government a lot more stable, as swings in seats would become far less common.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/florida-congressional-candidate-dead/index.html

Meanwhile, a slight dip to Democrats' House chances: Democratic candidate April Freeman has died unexpectedly. She was running to fill the seat vacated by a retiring GOP representative. Trump won the district by 27 points in 2016, so the district was likely always a longshot. The Florida State Department has announced that Democrats may designate a candidate to fill the vacancy, but Freeman's name will remain on the ballot.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that drama surround Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, huh? It's suggested that he would be disposed of as a distraction from the current allegations surrounding Kavanaugh and the news cycle currently covering it. Rosenstein is going to meet Trump on Thursday and Kavanaugh accuser is going to testify that Thursday, so the timing couldn't be more coincidental. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

McConnel accusing the Democrats of trying to stall the Kavanaugh hearings for political gain. Yes, this is the same Mitch McConnel who refused to have a hearing on Merrick Garland. You can't make this shit up.

Seriously, fuck you, you geriatric mutant Dixie turtle.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, he did handwring on how the situation is "different" when Chuck Schumer said that since this is an election year, they should decline to appoint any nominees to the Court.

Are the midterms different? Not really. If the balance of the Senate can shift, that can change whether or not a nominee gets through or not.

Chief Justice Roberts better be ready to play the part of liberal for a while, otherwise I fully support the Democrats packing the Court. They want a political court, let's give 'em a political court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it could be worthwhile introducing legislation to either fully protect the sitting president's right to nominate for the SCOTUS in election years, or introduce legislation to prohibit it outright - or both, depending on the nominee, whether there are any credible allegations against them, etc, though I fear that would only wind up encouraging phony allegations.

It's time to end the vague traditions, though, no more "one rule for us, another for them" crap, just enshrine doing the decent thing in law. It shouldn't have to be legislated, but god damn I am sick of these fucking political games.

And I absolutely agree that the Democrats should pack the courts if they can. McConnell and Trump are hard at it already, there's not a single reason why the Democrats shouldn't do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/republican-party-favorability/index.html

In spite of everything, the GOP has hit its highest favorability rating in years, at 45%. It was 47% after the 2010 elections.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/believe-ford-kavanaugh-poll/index.html

However, there's this. Fox News finds the plurality of Americans believe Ford over Kavanaugh, and while a slim majority of Republicans say the nomination should not be delayed, the overwhelming majority of independents and Democrats say the nomination should be slowed down.

This nomination is just so nakedly partisan at this point I honestly hope the next Democratic President creates a tenth seat.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/noel-francisco-succession-rod-rosenstein/index.html

If Rosenstein is fired, the next person in line to oversee Mueller is Noel Francisco, who has been notoriously supportive of executive power during his tenure as Solicitor General.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/rod-rosenstein-trump-congress-russia-investigation/index.html

Any attempt to protect Mueller will likely not go anywhere. Republicans have claimed the legislation is unneeded, or unconstitutional, or otherwise have basically given the non-gun variant of thoughts and prayers by saying it would be "concerning." There's no concrete plan here, just a "oh dear" at the idea of Mueller being reined in.

3 hours ago, Patticus said:

I think it could be worthwhile introducing legislation to either fully protect the sitting president's right to nominate for the SCOTUS in election years, or introduce legislation to prohibit it outright - or both, depending on the nominee, whether there are any credible allegations against them, etc, though I fear that would only wind up encouraging phony allegations.

This would most likely be struck down; the President retains the right to nominate as much as they want under the current situation, but the Senate is apparently changing its stance on whether or not it needs to hear the nomination. Based on the "advice and consent" wording, simply refusing to hear a nomination would presumably qualify as not granting consent.

This is one of those things that will most likely need an amendment. But then that raises another issue: the Senate, if forced to give hearings to nominees, can still just reject the nomination on the floor. It's ultimately a symbolic victory.

The same goes for using amendments to reinstate the filibuster in its entirety or to protect the Senatorial courtesy that the GOP is considering getting rid of. They are both instruments of a time when the Senate was far less partisan and polarized and where it was relatively easy to reach agreements regardless of Party. No amount of laws or constitutional provisions can really make the Senate better at this point, only the Senators can.

And the Senators have decided partisan hackery is the way to do business, even as they decry the fact they're becoming more like the House.

Honestly, if I had to come up with a reform to improve the Senate? Make it so people can vote in both major parties' primaries. As it stands, liberals vote predominantly in the Democratic primary, and conservatives in the GOP primary. This pushes both parties' final candidates towards the extremes, and also discourages having an amicable demeanor friendly to compromise. The two party system also worsens the problem, but that's probably going to take a lot more work to fix. As it stands, each party sets its internal rules for the most part, so the party establishments can easily pass reforms that would let a voter pick their choice for both parties. Research indicates people don't "raid" the other Party as hacks like Rush Limbaugh would like, but actually will vote for whichever candidate they like the most from that Party.

What primary voter is going to say no to a system that makes it so they get their favorite from each party, regardless of which party wins? It is the next best thing to having runoff ballots or proportional representation in how it expands our sense of choice and satisfaction with the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/405853-partisans-dilemma-fix-the-court-dont-pack-the-court

Something different in the midst of all this chaos. While lots of conservative partisans are frothing at the mouth to control the Court, they probably won't be smiling when Democrats get the chance to pack it.

That's where this proposal comes in: a Constitutional Amendment that would limit Justices to one 18-year term, fix the number of justices at 9, and have a new Justice appointed every 2 years (so basically, every election would involve picking a new Justice, so there'd be a new sense of fairness and political involvement for both sides).

Yes, this means the parties need to give up their short-term gains whenever they are in power. But it also means the Court's prestige and independence is preserved. Otherwise, we are looking at a Court that just adds seats every few years and just turns into a partisan, increasingly powerless and ineffective mess. It is in both parties' long-term interest to pass a reform like this. It would also be easy to frame: Senator McCain enjoys reverence for his repeated desires to try and restore some of the consensus politics, and proponents of this type of Amendment say it would be a great way to honor him.

Under the Federalist Papers, Justices have a life term for two reasons: first, it preserves their independence since they don't need to be appointed again, and two, it was a cushy job with lots of benefits that would ensure talented lawyers would try to get on the Court rather than opt for private practice. A single 18-year term would still keep the independence goal, would still provide excellent job security (plus a lot of high-ranking judges serve out of a sense of duty even though they could make more money going on book tours), and let's be honest, the Framers probably did not expect your typical Justice to live much longer than 18 years anyway.

This is not a new idea for federal positions, either. The Federal Reserve chairs have staggered 14-year terms, to limit the capacity of a President to pack the chairs to his liking (as he will undoubtedly lose power in Congress as his term goes on). The FCC's board likewise is made of staggered 5-year terms, and has additional rules prescribing the partisan makeup of the FCC.

Without a reform like this, we may as well just abolish the Supreme Court. Otherwise it's just an arm of whoever happened to last have a unified Congress and Presidency.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad I bought the Cosby box set before it sells out.  no joke I'm sure it will. While what he did was deplorable I feel bad for him in a way. At that age he may even pass the first year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics/senate-judiciary-committee-sets-kavanaugh-vote/index.html

The Judiciary Committee has already scheduled its Kavanaugh vote for Friday, a day after Ford is questioned by a special counsel rather than the individual Senators. Senator Feinstein felt scheduling the vote already showed bad faith because they're already planning it without hearing from Ford first, although Chuck Grassley has said they do not need to vote on Friday if they do not feel they are ready.

Jeff Flake might be a wildcard for the process.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics/phil-bredesen-chuck-schumer-senate/index.html

Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi just might be thrown out of power if a blue wave happens. Tennessee Senate hopeful Phil Bredesen has said he will not vote for Schumer for leader, echoing statements by Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona. This is parallel to scores of House candidates who say they will not vote for Pelosi as Speaker.

It is quite possible the Democrats will come into power with a sizable red/purple state caucus, which increases the odds Pelosi and Schumer, both lightning rods for conservatives, will lose their positions within the Party.

Given Schumer's support for partial birth abortions and Pelosi's tendency to double down on social justice over economic justice (although she did make a surprise announcement a while back that abortion rights would not be a litmus test for candidates), they're both looking a bit dated in a Party that's shifting more towards left wing economic populism that includes social moderates and conservatives.

And honestly? Given how a lot of the issues with guns and abortion would dry up with an expanded welfare state, I think it's an acceptable tradeoff. Take a look at Louisiana under John Bel Edwards; while he is infamous for a strong pro-life stance, without him, the state GOP would have gutted Planned Parenthood (Edwards, while pro-life, also emphasizes all the services Planned Parenthood provides and feels there isn't enough evidence that PP sells fetus parts to defund it) and prevented the expansion of Medicaid. Countless people have received needed medical care because the Louisiana Democrats were pragmatic.

Plus, the US' political structure is probably always going to favor these socially conservative areas. Doubling down on leftism on every dimension will not work as a long-term strategy.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning the Supreme Court, isn't it a major problem that the Court appointees are decided by the Senate in the first place? Such an important position can't and shouldn't be merely handled by a majority vote in government nor should the nominee be picked by the President themselves. The fact that the nomination of a justice can be made into a partisan issue in the first place is a blatant flaw.

Granted, my country's High Court nomination process is significantly less transparent, but process requires consultation with every attorney-general in the country before proceeding, each High Court Justice has a mandatory retirement date, and generally the nominees are not particularly controversial. It's comparatively lot less of a shitshow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avenatti has made his move: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/julie-swetnick-allegation-kavanaugh/index.html

TL;DR: A third woman, Julie Swetnick, alleges Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were at a party where she was drugged and gang raped. She has not definitively stated that Kavanaugh was among her attackers, but has reported that she attended  "well over ten" parties at which Kavanaugh was present and repeatedly witnessed him drunkenly engaging in sexually aggressive behavior. Swetnick claims to have at least two witnesses who can corroborate her account of the gang rape.

Democrats are appalled, Kavanaugh and Judge deny it, and Senate Republicans don't give a shit. What else is new?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/magazine/ex-felons-voting-rights-florida.html

News report on Florida's Voter Restoration Amendment, which would restore voting rights to 1.5 million people.

It is being backed by several conservative evangelical groups as much as many liberal groups. There are many conservatives backing it on the basis that the right to vote should not be so massively restricted. Many conservatives and liberals alike back it because they see it as possibly giving their side an advantage going forward. There's only one way to find out.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2018/09/koch-funded-freedom-partners-backs-voting-rights-for-felons.html

The Koch Brothers' main PAC in Florida has put its support behind the Amendment as well. There is a bipartisan push here. Florida may give us the largest expansion of suffrage since the Civil Rights Act.

17 hours ago, Candescence said:

Concerning the Supreme Court, isn't it a major problem that the Court appointees are decided by the Senate in the first place? Such an important position can't and shouldn't be merely handled by a majority vote in government nor should the nominee be picked by the President themselves. The fact that the nomination of a justice can be made into a partisan issue in the first place is a blatant flaw.

Part of it is concern for the Court's legitimacy. There's a concern that if the judges are not indirectly chosen by the people, it will lessen the public willingness to listen to them.

Quote

Granted, my country's High Court nomination process is significantly less transparent, but process requires consultation with every attorney-general in the country before proceeding, each High Court Justice has a mandatory retirement date, and generally the nominees are not particularly controversial. It's comparatively lot less of a shitshow.

I would argue the process is not that different. You have an executive official (the Attorney General instead of the President) consulting with prominent officials from each state (the state AGs instead of Senators). Now, there is an aura of professionalism here since these are appointed lawyers rather than elected officials, but I would question how real that is: how subject are they to the whims of their respective PMs? In America's system, having our Attorney General handle things would just be a proxy for the President to possibly control the process, because the President can always sack an uncooperative AG (although the Attorney General is one of the more revered posts and a lot of Senators dislike the idea of a President freely dismissing one).

Based on what I'm gathering from Australia's own Parliament website, the Australian PM has the means to get rid of an uncooperative Attorney General just like the US President does. This means the process is not as apolitical as it appears, even though custom might protect the Australian AG the same way it protects the American AG; this being considered, it might be a good idea to move appointment power to the AG. All the same, I would not be surprised if Australia's system is theoretically as vulnerable to partisanship as ours, there's just one very big difference.

The political divide. While I can see plenty of difference between the Australian parties, I also see a lot more common ground between them than I do with ours. Our parties can't agree on whether citizens have a right to health insurance or not. We can't agree on whether we should execute people. There's an absurdly long list of differences, with the parties basically disagreeing on every issue besides "respect the troops" and "fuck Ted Cruz." This is to say nothing of the immense institutional effects from having a separated executive and lower House; while a Prime Minister can reasonably expect to squeeze bills through Australia's House due to party discipline, the American President can expect bills to fall apart in the face of midterm elections and rabid partisanship, and the resultant hostility between the President and Speaker of the House will cause a lot of anger on both sides.

In a hostile climate like that, I don't think any system is going to make these judge appointments less partisan. All we could really hope for is a system that staggers the appointments so the partisanship is not overly destructive. As it stands, we're barreling towards a court packing situation that is basically going to destroy the Court.

I think the different political climate also plays a part in Australian court appointments not being as controversial: you are probably not arguing as much about whether a poor woman should be able to abort her pregnancy or whether assault rifles are protected by the Constitution. We are arguing about just about every single topic, and that makes both parties hungrily eye the Court.

Our country is basically being torn apart by some Frankenstein Party that simultaneously wants anarchism and fascism, and a Party that wants to make us more like other Western states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like these hearings are not going too well.

Ford seems to have been given the tougher questions by the counsel, but Kavanaugh is repeatedly breaking decorum interrupting Senators and channeling a lot of anger in his voice.

Clarence Thomas, the last nominee to deal with sexual allegations, was cleared 52-48, in a very different time.

Kavanaugh's future looks really uncertain. The allegations aside, he is exposing an emotional side.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-opening-statement-christine-blasey-ford.html

He's also named Democrats and the left specifically as opponents. Judges are supposed to look nonpartisan.

The best thing the GOP can do at this moment is can him and put someone else on the bench. There is just way too much going wrong here.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/orrin-hatch-kavanaugh-accuser-attractive/index.html

Jesus Christ. Orrin Hatch referred to Ford as an "attractive, good witness."

Like... can you not?

Saying someone is beautiful would normally be a compliment, but... considering the context, it is seriously inappropriate. The last thing a hearing on something like this needs is the witness being made out like eye candy.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Between the hearings for Kavanaugh going haywire and Rosenstein's future looking uncertain I honestly feel that I need a drink just to make sense of this mess of "The Orange One's" administration. Robert Mueller needs to have his backup plans in place when Rosenstein does get replaced with another of "The Orange One's" lackeys or things will get to a "Civil War 2.0" and "WW3" condition.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/kavanaugh-hearing-after-all-that-its-still-about-a-handful-of-senators/index.html

The committee vote is scheduled for tomorrow, with the Senate floor vote scheduled for Saturday. It's going to be a tense weekend.

On the GOP side, Senators Flake, Murkowski, and Collins are seen as possible No votes, as they've all expressed concerns with the process, the latter two are notable moderates, and Flake is a routine critic of Trump and on his way out. On the Democratic side, several Senators are from ruby red states and might vote Yes just to shore up their credentials in this year's midterm.

I would not be surprised if we end up 50-50 and Pence has to become the first Vice President to vote for a Supreme Court justice.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The American Bar Association has issued a statement calling for a full FBI investigation and a delayed vote.

Source.

The GOP, which seems entirely more interested in ramming this appointment through (it's their last opportunity before the midterms) without doing its due diligence, will probably ignore them, even after praising them during yesterday's Kavanaugh testimony, calling them the "gold standard."

Another reason why they may be so rabidly trying to ram through Kavanaugh's appointment: the Supreme Court has a case coming up in October that could enable Trump to pardon people at the state level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.